Given the recent teething troubles between the A380 and the 787 Dreamliner, I‘m beginning to think that there might be a stop gap opportunity for commercial carriers to order the 748i while the teething problems of any new larger capacity aircraft ordered are worked out.

So, for example, rather than hang on to older 744’s in their fleets, wouldn’t it make senses for carriers like Delta and United to order (or lease) say 10 748i’s each to help with the inevitable delays as the new A350s and 777X’s and other large new jet work their way through their teething problems?

I know the 77Ws are available, but their don’t truly match the capabilities of the 748i. Alternatively; leasing companies might have a couple of 748i’s on order to use as leases to carriers like United when the introduction problems of the new aircraft become manifest.

Seems to me that it’s not a matter of if but when and for how long these technical challenges last (be it performance, range shortfalls, design hitches etc), they slow down commercial entry into service by a number of years (avg. 3 year delays).

Quote:I know the 77Ws are available, but their don’t truly match the capabilities of the 748i.

Uh, yes they do? The 77W can do almost all of the 747 missions. The performance of the current 747-8 is not good enough, but things could change in 2014 with the upgrades coming in. However, 2014 could also be the year of the 777X announcement and such an aircraft could easily kill the 747-8i CASM.

At this point I don't really see a big market for the 747-8i. The 77W is too good, and a 777X will eventually kill it.

Until they, too, suffer from some random issue. No new aircraft is immune from the potential of issues, and there's enough that's new in the -8i that an airline is still taking a risk by introducing a new type.

The 77W has been proven to be an excellent and reliable aircraft. If an airline is looking to reduce the risk of issues then the 777 makes far more sense than the 748i.

The 748I has more capacity than the 77W.
I think that the 77W is too small and the A380 too big for some mission.
Look at AF: they will operate the 77W until next April, but after, they will switch back to the 744 indefinitely: the 77W didn't have enough capacity for this route.

Speaking as a passenger thats totally wrong. Having flown on the 748I I must say its a superior product. Its a shame that so many airlines do not appreciate that. Too many beancounters staring at and acting like the competition.

The 748I is much bigger so I dont know how you come to that verdict. Its as if you say 787 > 77W, same size difference as between 77W and 748.

The 748 will get engine PIP and has shed 5000 pounds of weight up to now, they aim to shave off another 5000pounds going forward. And the tail tank will be activated too. The freighter will get a thrust boost.

Quoting Africawings (Thread starter): I‘m beginning to think that there might be a stop gap opportunity for commercial carriers to order the 748i while the teething problems of any new larger capacity aircraft ordered are worked out.

One doesn't make a multi-BILLION dollar investment with a 20+ year lifespan on the basis that service introduction will have teething troubles. It really, really doesn't work like that. It's not selling as it's a 43 year old platform tweaekd with a new wing and engines whereas the B77W is only based on a platform dating from the early 90s and the A380 is a new design. Add in that the B77W can do most of what the B747-8 can do but with only two engines and it's apparent why Boeing aren't selling more.

Quoting na (Reply 8):Too many beancounters staring at and acting like the competition.

They don't count beans.
They model using advanced techniques and algorithms. They employ genuinely clever and smart people who are well paid to make the right decision for the business. There seems to be a unison across many different airlines in different alliances on different continents that the B747 is not the answer going into the 2020s.

Still, if calling them "beancounters" makes them sound like fools then I cannot stop you.

Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):Given the recent teething troubles between the A380 and the 787 Dreamliner, I‘m beginning to think that there might be a stop gap opportunity for commercial carriers to order the 748i while the teething problems of any new larger capacity aircraft ordered are worked out.

Not really. The 747-8I will have teething troubles too. Moving from one airframe to another doesn't fix that problem.

Quoting na (Reply 8):Speaking as a passenger thats totally wrong. Having flown on the 748I I must say its a superior product. Its a shame that so many airlines do not appreciate that.

They absolutely do appreciate it. But what they *really* appreciate is that passengers (in general, no necessarily you specifically) will not spend a dime for a "superior" airframe so there's absolutely no business case to base your purchase decisions on that.

I think the 747-8i is a niche aircraft but it could have a life; like many said before it will slot between a 777W and A380 capacity wise, also it would be a good choice for airlines that have few destinations or operate from hot and high airports as it’s the only other alternative with 4 engines besides de A380.this means less penalties operating from such airfields; good candidates would be South African Airways, Iberia, KLM too, also American carriers like UA/CO and even DL.

Quoting LY777 (Reply 18):What I don't understand is why the 748I is considered like a niche a/c, contrary to the 744: the difference of capacity is not so important

Many airlines bought the 747 because it was the only thing around in years gone by with the range they needed, with the large twin widebodies like the 777 today, there is an alternative and with many routes also fragmenting and with more competitors its easier to fill a smaller plane (which is also more economic fuel wise).

The times we are living, when the 747 debuted and even up to the 747-400 it was the biggest commercial plane in service.

Nowadays you have the 777W nipping as its heels plus the A380 which is capacity king; you also have the market shifting to twin engines, the saving grace for the A380 its capacity which dictates –for now- the use of 4 engines otherwise it would have been toast!
You have to facto also newcomers like the 787-10 and the A350-1000 coming in service soon and that put some pressure on the 747-8i.

However I believe the 747 could be more competitive because it’s here and available at this moment, the trick is to use it with more dense layouts, let say from 430-460 passengers which will make it more cost effective than the 777W and getting close to the A380; it should be used use in routes where twins may incur penalties (hot and high) and in airports where the conversion/set up to receive A380 may take some time or can’t be applicable.

Quoting LY777 (Reply 18):What I don't understand is why the 747-8i is considered like a niche a/c, contrary to the 744: the difference of capacity is not so important

It's niche because the 77W can do almost everything the 748 can with less fuel burned. The A380 can carry more people a comparable distance. This boxes in the business case for the 748 pretty severely.

Not many airlines need the 748 given what's out there that is either cheaper to operate or can carry more people.

10 years from now, when the 777X is in service, Boeing will discontinue production of the 747, having run out of 747-8 orders (most of them cargo, with maybe a handful of additional passenger models being ordered by carriers that want to top-up their fleets before production ends).

Starting the next day, you will see "Boeing should have never ended 747 production" threads running alongside the similar 757 threads here on a.net, with people using every argument in the world (except for market realities) as a reason that production should still be going on.

The question is, are the enhanced capability required? From the order number of past few years the answer seems to be a resounding "NO".

Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):leasing companies might have a couple of 748i’s on order to use as leases to carriers like United when the introduction problems of the new aircraft become manifest.

Again, what if these "problems" do not become manifest? It is not like 748i are in demand everywhere so leasing company may have a hard time finding an airline willing to lease them if UA/DL no longer requires them.

Quoting na (Reply 8):Speaking as a passenger thats totally wrong. Having flown on the 748I I must say its a superior product. Its a shame that so many airlines do not appreciate that. Too many beancounters staring at and acting like the competition.

I agree. I just got my first ride on the upper deck of the 748i, and nothing comes close in terms of business class comfort. The storage bins under the windows are something that the 77W just can't equal. Also, LH's new seats are truly wonderful.

All that said, though, I can see how the 777 will, in one way or another, kill the 748 economically. I just hope that Boeing can sell a few more before that happens.

Quoting LY777 (Reply 18):
What I don't understand is why the 748I is considered like a niche a/c, contrary to the 744: the difference of capacity is not so important

The 77W replaced the 744. Yes, it has 12% smaller passenger capacity but larger cargo capacity. It has almost the same range as the 744. It is a 744 replacement. The proof is in the sales: as soon as the 77W was offered, the 744 orders began to dry up. If it was not considered a satisfactory replacement, the airlines would have said so.

The 744 was so popular, in part, because its only competition was the MD-11. The only other aircraft with 7000+NM range was the 747-SP. Once the 777 became capable of matching the 744's range, it became very popular. That kind of lift is very useful to airlines.

The B-748i is certainly boxed in and may be gone in 10 years but what will replace the B-748F? Something currently being sold...I don't know what it would be. Perhaps the much talked about 777XF? I think Boeing is going to have its hands on a highly capable, very large freighter for a long time.
Thanks,
Cary

Since the cargo capacity of the 747-8F is better the the rest, it is better for cargo carriers than passenger. If this is the case, Boeing should scrap the 747-8i offering and market it for the cargo customers. There will be more sales.

With the Boeing's Yellowstone Project, this might change the future of the 747 type aircrafts, in the near future. Only time will tell if the 747 will completely be replaced with something bigger and better.

There is no logical basis for a B748 buy, unless the price is very, very cheap. The basic aircraft is 1960's technology, with no FBW , a fuselage designed in the mid-1960's and heavy mechanical systems. The B747 was a brilliant design without question, but it is outdated, and the B748 just makes it longer and harder to handle. B77W or 77X when it comes are FBW, fairly modern and very efficient and well proven also. It's hard to imagine anybody other than a freight carrier really wanting a B748. They've had orders from some airlines, with deep discounts, but only ones that had other B747's.

Quoting Africawings (Thread starter):Given the recent teething troubles between the A380 and the 787 Dreamliner, I‘m beginning to think that there might be a stop gap opportunity for commercial carriers to order the 748i while the teething problems of any new larger capacity aircraft ordered are worked out.

Firstly, the 787's problems have no bearing on anything other than orders for 767's and A330's. If a carrier needs a plane in the 787 class they won't spend 5 seconds considering a 748i as an alternative. Secondly the A380, yes there is a wing problem, but its a problem with both an interim and a final solution, airlines presently receving aircraft will get a free midlife upgrade of the wing structure, and next years deliveries will have the redesign. Airbus have recently stated that production will remain at 3/month due to the slow pace of sales. If the demand is there they can start to up the rate.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):At this point I don't really see a big market for the 747-8i. The 77W is too good, and a 777X will eventually kill it.

I agree. The 747-8i's future is not bright, especially with the 777-9X on the horizon. There's no reason why an airline would buy a quad when a similarly sized twin can do the job.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 3): The 77W is the right aircraft for bean counters who want to shrink and loose market share...

Tell that to EK.

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 28):Why? What does it cost Boeing to offer the 8i alongside the 8f? The I model may not be selling, but it's not as though BCA is taking a loss on supporting it for now...

While I believe that the 747-8i doesn't have much of a future - and indeed, the 777-9X will probably be the final nail in its coffin, I don't see why Boeing can't continue to offer the aircraft for sale. As long as there are sales for the 747-8F, I don't think it would be too costly for Boeing to also continue supporting 747-8is.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
At this point I don't really see a big market for the 747-8i. The 77W is too good, and a 777X will eventually kill it.

Funny you mention this, I know from an inside source that AF was recently evaluating the 747-8 as a 744 replacement... Forthe time no decision has been made, simply because AF amount of cash is dramatically limited, but still...
I don't believe the 77W can do EVERY mission the 747-8i has been built. Boeing wouldn't have spent that much money do design it, if this airplane wouldn't have any market...

The truth is that the 747-8i is a payload master (and as always been), far beyond the 77W and the A380. The 77W can carry a huge load of pax, their luggages and remains a pretty decent payload, to be filled with freight. This cannot be done with the A380; once the aircraft is filled with pax+luggage load, there's almost no room left available for additional cargo load. Ask it to LH or AF; they had a pretty bad surprise on the FRA/CDG-NRT route. AF put back a 747F to carry the load the A380 left on ground!
The 748-8i carries less pax than a A380, but can carry all its filled seats, plus a huge load of freight... The 77W can do the same proportionnally, but it's always less than a 747...

The 747-8i is designed for carrying LOAD. Whatever that payload is. Period.

But don't forget that like the 767, airlines might yet find a useful role for the 748i. If I remember correctly 767's didn't really find their mark till almost 10 years after entry into service (airlines were initially enamored with the DC10 and L1011's). I'm hoping the same will be true of the 748i as airlines take another look at their yield reports and see revenue opportunities, offering for example more business class seats, or more cargo capacity or a combination of the two that justifies the use of the 748i. I'm just saying...

Quoting airproxx (Reply 32):The truth is that the 747-8i is a payload master (and as always been), far beyond the 77W and the A380.

Actually, the 747-8i has eight fewer LD3 positions in the lower cargo hold than the 777-300ER. On top of that, the 747-8i carries a greater number of passengers, thus taking up more LD3s for bags. The 777-300ER can carry more cargo by volume than the 747-8i.

As for "always has been", it is worth noting that the 777-300ER beats both the 747-400 and the 747-400ER in payload range performance, based on OEM published payload range charts.

And between the first test frame and the current models coming of the line Boeing already did:

- Reduced weight by 5000 lbs, in the end the total weight savings would be around 10 000 lbs
- Another software update
- Tweaked the aileron position during flight to reduce fuel burn

The bottom line of this is that the sum of ALL of these changes has to at least make it competitive with the upper 777 offerings or else it won't sell. It has 4 engines--that's a major problem really, and fuel savings and CASM economics have to either be able to make up for that or it's DOA as a pax aircraft and will live on exclusively as a freighter, even if it fits a gauge gap between the A380 and 777.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 11):Still, if calling them "beancounters" makes them sound like fools then I cannot stop you.

Agree- I denounce the negativity to finance people here. Sorry for some, but reality is ALL ABOUT finance and splitting hairs on a daily basis. The romantic notion of flying a whale isn't in the fleet argument. But run rates on fractions of pennies are. An army of flight performance engineers, airport people, sales, flight ops, fleet analysts, are all wrapped up in a finance package when an airline makes these kind of decisions. It's high time to stop denigrating their work. This Airliners.net place is admittedly an escapist world, but let's not forget it IS an artificial universe and there are real people on the other end whose job it is to make and be involved in these decisions.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 36):Actually, the 747-8i has eight fewer LD3 positions in the lower cargo hold than the 777-300ER. On top of that, the 747-8i carries a greater number of passengers, thus taking up more LD3s for bags. The 777-300ER can carry more cargo by volume than the 747-8i.

A VERY good point. And for some airlines, depending on their mission application and where they want to fly said aircraft, this becomes a very germane point. If an airline can reasonably get cargo revenue that will eclipse pax revenues, they'll do so. I'd rather be one size too small and be able to take freight than one size too big and worry about diluting pax yields AND perhaps be hampered with the lack of sufficient belly revenue.

Their 777-300ERs seat 297 folks and the A380 will seat 469 something of a quantum leap between the 2.

The A350-1000 is marketed by Airbus as 350 folks in 3 class configuration so that's not going to be more than 300 I would guess in a typical BA 4 class configuration - so no real advance on closing the gap between the 777-300ER and the A380.

Lufthansa manage 360 in their 748is - just a nice fit for BAs gap - and a modest increase over their existing midJ 744s for those 744 routes that don't merit an A380.

So unless the upgraded 777X is going to fill that gap, thereby standing on the toes of 748i sales it would seem to my naive way of thinking that Willie should be popping over to Seattle and signing up for maybe a dozen 748is pdq.

I was thinking the same thing. I think BA and Delta (after NW merger) has a lot of older 747-400 that will need replacing. Replacing them now might give both airlines a discounted price tag. The A380 will be different picture than the 747 as more airports can handle the 747-8i with the existing terminal gate formats, without any modification.

Quoting gihanjaya380 (Reply 38):Quoting jumpjets (Reply 38):I still can't fathom why BA haven't ordered some 748is
I was thinking the same thing. I think BA and Delta (after NW merger) has a lot of older 747-400 that will need replacing. Replacing them now might give both airlines a discounted price tag. The A380 will be different picture than the 747 as more airports can handle the 747-8i with the existing terminal gate formats, without any modification.

In theory its the ideal solution, to have a fleet of many types with a plane available all the way up the scale every 40 or 50 seats, in reality however there comes a point where it costs more to have all these variants available due to extra maintenance and crewing costs than it saves. One immediate factor that springs to mind is that the rules for cabin crew allow them to be certified on a maximum of three types. As it is BA at LHR operate four types, soon to be six, reducing back to five as the 767's depart. Add another type into the equation and deploying crew becomes more difficult. Another factor is that demand on routes varies widely according to the time of year and even the day of the week. A 748i might be the ideal plane for a Saturday in January, but a 388 might cope any day of the year.

BA have already stated that they have no intention of operating the 748i, quite why this crops up almost every month is a mystery. Might as well have some threads asking when Southwest are buying A320's, EL AL some A350's or even Iran some 748i's

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 40):BA have already stated that they have no intention of operating the 748i, quite why this crops up almost every month is a mystery.

You also have to consider the longer term. The 77W is likely to hold its value much better than the 748 due to its performance, versatility and the many carriers already operating it. That's probably why no leasing companies have ordered the 748 passenger aircraft. They don't want to get stuck with an aircraft they can't place once the original customer returns it from lease. And most carriers these days have no interest in 4-engine aircraft when 2 will do all or most of the job more efficiently, again considering that fuel prices aren't likely to drop significantly in the longer term and maintaining 4 engines costs more than 2.

Quoting slider (Reply 36):
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 36):
Actually, the 747-8i has eight fewer LD3 positions in the lower cargo hold than the 777-300ER. On top of that, the 747-8i carries a greater number of passengers, thus taking up more LD3s for bags. The 777-300ER can carry more cargo by volume than the 747-8i.

A VERY good point. And for some airlines, depending on their mission application and where they want to fly said aircraft, this becomes a very germane point. If an airline can reasonably get cargo revenue that will eclipse pax revenues, they'll do so. I'd rather be one size too small and be able to take freight than one size too big and worry about diluting pax yields AND perhaps be hampered with the lack of sufficient belly revenue.

Right. CX is a good example of this philosophy in action. They do great for payload & PAX ops on their 77Ws, and if the 748i was really viable in this area, they'd obviously have about 30 on order, since fusing PAX & Cargo Ops is something they do very well. But they don't do they? In fact, they have about 20 77W remaining on order, in addition to the 30 they operate now. So...

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 37):Their 777-300ERs seat 297 folks and the A380 will seat 469 something of a quantum leap between the 2.

I think, in addition to the other things said, it would be easier to simply up the 77W capacity (maybe to a low, or lower J configuration), should that need arise. Don't forget, the 77W can seat over 380 PAX 3 class, or 450 in two class layout as well. AF & KL have done pretty well outfitting some of theirs in High Density configurations.

I'm not saying BA has to do things that way, but it seems that would be a great deal easier than trying to shoe-horn a 748i into the fleet. If I had to wager, I'd say that this is how things will go (more & higher density 77Ws) as the 744s begin to leave the fleet.

I will say that BA can use a low density VLA well, owing to the amount to NYC - LON traffic they take care of. But that is just as easily handled by the 380, (or 77Es should frequency prevail).

Quoting Stitch (Reply 39):
Airbus and RR at least matched Boeing and GE to win the last VLA RFP, so that ship has sailed. If BA needs more VLAs, they will take additional A380s.

Likely, yes. I feel though, that they could just as easily shore up that gap with additional 77Ws on the other end as well.

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 40): Might as well have some threads asking when Southwest are buying A320's, EL AL some A350's or even Iran some 748i's

Actually, I think Iran Air might be a viable candidate for that plane, assuming the necessary changes in political weather all around, of course.

The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.